Adendorffs Boerderye v Shabalala and Others (997/15) [2017] ZASCA 37 (29 March 2017)

Adendorffs Boerderye v Shabalala and Others (997/15) [2017] ZASCA 37 (29 March 2017)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Land Claims Court erred by granting orders not sought or pleaded by the parties, including obligations for the appellant to provide alternative grazing and for the Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform to secure grazing for the respondents. The court found that both landowner and land user share responsibility under CARA to prevent overgrazing, but CARA does not preclude civil proceedings by the landowner to enforce rights or remedies. The respondents' grazing rights derived from agreement, not from ESTA or labour tenancy, and the Minister was not a party to the agreements nor mandated under CARA to provide grazing or pay rentals. The...

Citation
[2017] ZASCA 37
Parties
Appellant: Adendorffs Boerderye (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Fayindolo Shabalala; Respondent: Timothy Shabalala; Respondent: Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform; Respondent: Minister of Agriculture
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 March 2017
Case Number
997/15
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Land Claims Court; Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal upheld; orders of the Land Claims Court set aside and substituted.
Judges
Shongwe, Majiedt, Mathopo, Van der Merwe, Mbatha
Legal Topics
Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act, Overgrazing, Removal of Livestock, Court Orders, Costs De Bonis Propriis
Land and Property Civil Procedure Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act Overgrazing Removal of Livestock Court Orders Costs De Bonis Propriis

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adendorffs Boerderye (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Fayindolo Shabalala

Respondent

Timothy Shabalala

Respondent

Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform

Respondent

Minister of Agriculture

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Land Claims Court; Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Land Claims Court was competent to grant orders not sought or pleaded by the parties.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant, as landowner, is solely responsible for rehabilitation and provision of alternative grazing under CARA.
  3. 3 Whether the Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform can be ordered to secure alternative grazing for occupiers not declared labour tenants.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Land Claims Court erred by granting orders not sought or pleaded by the parties, including obligations for the appellant to provide alternative grazing and for the Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform to secure grazing for the respondents. The court found that both landowner and land user share responsibility under CARA to prevent overgrazing, but CARA does not preclude civil proceedings by the landowner to enforce rights or remedies. The respondents' grazing rights derived from agreement, not from ESTA or labour tenancy, and the Minister was not a party to the agreements nor mandated under CARA to provide grazing or pay rentals. The...

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal upheld; orders of the Land Claims Court set aside and substituted.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
  • The cross appeal is upheld with no order as to costs.